Cheers Mark. The twin-engined Alizé isn't much of a looker but I like the concept nonetheless.

On to something else ...

Commonwealth Aircraft CA-26 Super Wackett

The CAC CA-26 Super Wackett was actually a joint project between Commonwealth Aircraft and de Havilland Australia. This 1948 programme involved the wholesale re-manufacturing of retired CA-6 Wackett airframes to provide the RAAF with a more modern basic trainer. Within that re-manufacturing programme, CAC was responsible for airframe work while DHA provided (and late produce) adapted DHC-1 Chipmunk components - including engine mounts, cowlings, and canopies.

DHA also supplied Gipsy engines and propellers as well as rebuilding CA-6 Wackett undercarriage assemblies. CAC produced an entirely new, all-metal structure wing and refurbished existing CA-6 fuselage frames for the Super Wackett programme. Ultimately, an entirely new tailplane - insired by the license-built CA-17 Mustang fighter was also built for 'production' conversion CA-26s.

The new, metal wing was smaller than the original to give a livelier performance. Span was reduced to 34.5 feet (10.51 m) with area down to 170 square feet (15.79 m˛). It was originally intended to keep the wooden tailplane from the CA-6 - as on the prototype CA-26 - but, to reduce maintenance loads, it was later decided to provide a new empennage of metal construction. One result of all this reworking was a reduction in all-up weight of 200 lbs (100 kg). That was essential in allowing the CA-6's Warner Scarab radial engine to be replaced while retaining adequate take-off performance. [1]

The CA-26 Super Wackett would be powered by a 145 hp de Havilland Gipsy Major 1C inline. [2] Serving until the mid-'50s, the Super Wackett received the RAAF serial prefix of A33 [3] with aircraft numbers being inherited from their CA-6 'doner' airframe - so, A33-77 illustrated was re-manufactured from CA-6 c/n 311 (formerly A3-77 of 3 EFTS).__________________

[1] There was no weight-savings in changing engines since the Gipsy Major 1C and Warner Scarab had the same dry weight.

[2] Ironically, this was a postwar version of the 130 hp DH Gipsy Major engines originally fitted to the CA-12 prototypes.

Interestingly, in the real world, the first two prototypes (shown below) did have in-line Gipsy Major/Gipsy six engines but were found to be under-powered. This is why they went to the 175hp Warner Scarab.

Interestingly, in the real world, the first two prototypes (shown below) did have in-line Gipsy Major/Gipsy six engines but were found to be under-powered. This is why they went to the 175hp Warner Scarab.

Yeah, re-engining was a good move. And that's what prompted my Super Wackett 'weight-reduction' programme. I love the look of the DH-powered CA-2 prototypes but they sound pretty gutless

M.A.D had mentioned a Herc with An-32-style nacelles to allow larger-diameter propellers. Here, I've just plonked a Orion wing and nacelles onto a C-130H fuselage. Of course, that won't get M.A.D his larger props, so ... no apparent advantages (other than further reduction in FOD potential).

To get M.A.D's desired advantage, you'd need more span to clear larger-diameter props (or go multi-bladed as per C-130J). A question for the engineers is: are there any other benefits to a high-mounted version of the L-188/P-3 wing?

First of all, that was the configuration on the proposed C-130 flying boat to keep the props out of the spray.

Also, how about dual TP400s mounted above the wing to restore the original ground clearance on the C-130? I know the TP400 testbed had it mounted normally, but that wasn't mean to land in rough airfields at all. You can take timed out C-130Hs that need a new wing box and just give them a new wing with twin TP400s as sort of a budget C-130J competitor.

... how about dual TP400s mounted above the wing to restore the original ground clearance on the C-130? I know the TP400 testbed had it mounted normally, but that wasn't mean to land in rough airfields at all. You can take timed out C-130Hs that need a new wing box and just give them a new wing with twin TP400s as sort of a budget C-130J competitor.

I like your thinking Logan! Especially combining the conversion work with new wing boxes. Actually, I had that in my original scenario for A97-449 (which also lost its former C-130H-30 'stretch' barrel sections).

Looking at the TP400-D6, its gearbox and intake arrangement is quite similar to that of the T56. Not that difficult to image it reorganized for a lower thrust line/higher air intake

The few A400's I saw at YYC were mostly Luftwaffe, and they sort of just arrive un-announced. So they got directed to an apron and then they have to wait for the ground crew to get organized, sometimes they were left there with their engines running for 40-50 minutes. One thing I noticed about the sound of the TP-400's when they are just idling --- they rattle ---

You could even make it an Airbus project. The A400M sales aren't quite doing as well as they'd like, they offer to purchase countries' old C-130s in order to better facilitate sales, then they re-wing and re-engine them to give Airbus an offering in between the C-295 and A400M to compete with the C-130J and KC-390. In fact, if you put refueling tanks on them, you can say the higher mounting was for greater ground clearance as well as reduced prop wash for refueling helicopters.